- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
PAP Desmond Choo: Always here for you – Really?
May 23rd, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Hougang’s PAP man to lobby for new market” (ST, May 9) [Link].
Win or lose will keep promises?
It states that “Mr Choo the grassroots adviser to the ward, maintains that his plans are not electioneering tactics, but long-term schemes that will be carried out “with or without the by-election”. “Nothing is done for the purpose of the election””.
As to “But the timing of these events, he insisted, is “coincidental”. Grassroots activities have been humming along since the election last year “and “The job centre is one of seven schemes Mr Choo promised residents before the general election”, I find this strategy rather puzzling – since the losing candidate will continue to keep and implement all his promises and plans before the election, what is the incentive for residents to vote for him?
The election strategy of “you will not get upgrading if you vote for the opposition” may seem to have turned one full circle to “I will keep my promises and implement my plans whether I win or lose”.
2 MPs, better than 1?
After all, history has shown Singaporeans that an opposition ward actually has in a sense, the best of both worlds – with a Member of Parliament (MP) and a grassroots adviser serving them at the same time.
As to the remarks “Hougang can get best of both worlds: DPM Teo” (Straits Times, May 12) [Link], have we forgotten that residents only get the “best of both worlds” in opposition wards because of the position of a grassroots adviser which cannot be from an opposition party?
No “freak election” fear?
Also, going by the logic that “After he lost, many Hougang voters told him that they had voted against him even though they believed he could help them, because they wanted to voice their displeasure over national issues. They also feared that Parliament would be left without an opposition voice after Mr Low left Hougang to contest Aljunied GRC”, perhaps some voters may now no longer fear the possibility of a “freak election” resulting in a change in Government, and vote over-whelmingly for the Workers’ Party (WP) instead.
How many Hougang grants requests rejected?
According to Mr Chiam See Tong, the former Member of Parliament (MP) for Potong Pasir, a few years ago, his town council built 29 lifts free-of-charge for the residents of Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, without them having to make any co-payments like for the usual Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) [Link]. This was achieved without a single cent from Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds, which all PAP-managed town councils in Singapore receive.
To apply for CIPC funds, he was required to have the endorsement of the Adviser of the Potong Pasir Residents’ Committees (RC), who incidentally was the PAP candidate for the constituency in three general elections.
All applications over the years were rejected, with the sole exception being one application made in 2011 for a barrier-free accessibility project.
So, what was the experience of Hougang in applying for CIPC funds?
Taking into account all the grants from the Government, PAP town councils like Aljunied Town Council received $560 per household for the financial year ended March 2005. (“The gathering storm”, ST, Mar 25, 2006)
In contrast, government grants came up to just $111 per household in Hougang.
Since Hougang residents received $449 less per household in just one year, how much less did they receive during the years that it was an opposition ward?
Still no full and proper account?
In announcing the by-election, the remark was made that “Until now, he said the Workers Party has not given Singaporeans a full and proper account of what happened, or why it acted the way it did” (“By-election should not distract focus on national priorities, says PM Lee” (Channel NewsAsia, May 9) [Link].
By the same token, perhaps “until now, the Government has not given Singaporeans (particularly the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir) a full and proper account of what happened, or why it acted the way it did”, in denying CIPC funds to them over the last two decades or so.
“Always here for you”?
Finally, how do we reconcile the new by-election tagline “Always here for you” with what happened in Hougang over the last two decades?
.
Leong Sze Hian
Leong Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at http://www.leongszehian.com.
I refer to the article “Hougang’s PAP man to lobby for new market” (ST, May 9) [Link].
Win or lose will keep promises?
It states that “Mr Choo the grassroots adviser to the ward, maintains that his plans are not electioneering tactics, but long-term schemes that will be carried out “with or without the by-election”. “Nothing is done for the purpose of the election””.
As to “But the timing of these events, he insisted, is “coincidental”. Grassroots activities have been humming along since the election last year “and “The job centre is one of seven schemes Mr Choo promised residents before the general election”, I find this strategy rather puzzling – since the losing candidate will continue to keep and implement all his promises and plans before the election, what is the incentive for residents to vote for him?
The election strategy of “you will not get upgrading if you vote for the opposition” may seem to have turned one full circle to “I will keep my promises and implement my plans whether I win or lose”.
2 MPs, better than 1?
After all, history has shown Singaporeans that an opposition ward actually has in a sense, the best of both worlds – with a Member of Parliament (MP) and a grassroots adviser serving them at the same time.
As to the remarks “Hougang can get best of both worlds: DPM Teo” (Straits Times, May 12) [Link], have we forgotten that residents only get the “best of both worlds” in opposition wards because of the position of a grassroots adviser which cannot be from an opposition party?
No “freak election” fear?
Also, going by the logic that “After he lost, many Hougang voters told him that they had voted against him even though they believed he could help them, because they wanted to voice their displeasure over national issues. They also feared that Parliament would be left without an opposition voice after Mr Low left Hougang to contest Aljunied GRC”, perhaps some voters may now no longer fear the possibility of a “freak election” resulting in a change in Government, and vote over-whelmingly for the Workers’ Party (WP) instead.
How many Hougang grants requests rejected?
According to Mr Chiam See Tong, the former Member of Parliament (MP) for Potong Pasir, a few years ago, his town council built 29 lifts free-of-charge for the residents of Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, without them having to make any co-payments like for the usual Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) [Link]. This was achieved without a single cent from Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds, which all PAP-managed town councils in Singapore receive.
To apply for CIPC funds, he was required to have the endorsement of the Adviser of the Potong Pasir Residents’ Committees (RC), who incidentally was the PAP candidate for the constituency in three general elections.
All applications over the years were rejected, with the sole exception being one application made in 2011 for a barrier-free accessibility project.
So, what was the experience of Hougang in applying for CIPC funds?
Taking into account all the grants from the Government, PAP town councils like Aljunied Town Council received $560 per household for the financial year ended March 2005. (“The gathering storm”, ST, Mar 25, 2006)
In contrast, government grants came up to just $111 per household in Hougang.
Since Hougang residents received $449 less per household in just one year, how much less did they receive during the years that it was an opposition ward?
Still no full and proper account?
In announcing the by-election, the remark was made that “Until now, he said the Workers Party has not given Singaporeans a full and proper account of what happened, or why it acted the way it did” (“By-election should not distract focus on national priorities, says PM Lee” (Channel NewsAsia, May 9) [Link].
By the same token, perhaps “until now, the Government has not given Singaporeans (particularly the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir) a full and proper account of what happened, or why it acted the way it did”, in denying CIPC funds to them over the last two decades or so.
“Always here for you”?
Finally, how do we reconcile the new by-election tagline “Always here for you” with what happened in Hougang over the last two decades?
.
Leong Sze Hian
Leong Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at http://www.leongszehian.com.
Last edited:
